Re: Non-participants in community
From: LScottr2go (LScottr2goaol.com)
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 07:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
In a message dated 5/22/2004 7:09:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
heimann [at] world.std.com writes:
I've read on this list and have seen in other cohousing communities the
basic foundation that work requirements are an obligation taken on by
consensus by the community in lieu of higher condo fees.  As such they
become obligations much the same as condo fees and can be enforced in the
same way as condo fees.  As far as I can see this does mean you can
require a mortgage holder to do x hours of work (or hire it out) in the
same way you can require a mortgage holder to pay condo fees.

In any event we at JP Cohousing are presently developing our work
expectations policy and are basing it on this "obligations we accept in
lieu of higher condo fees" approach.
As I've read the postings, it occurs to me that a cohousing group could even 
handle this by approving a rather high condo fee, with the opportunity to "pay 
off" a part of it with work contributions.  That would make some form of 
contribution the default setting rather than "non-contribution", and takes into 
account the reality of work needing to get done.  However,  even the most 
non-participant person in my community spends many hours maintaining their own 
little garden area, which never fails to give me pleasure and adds to the 
positive 
visual impact on visitors.  I can't think of anyone living here who, even 
though they may not participate in meetings or committees, makes no 
contribution 
to life here...and having said that:  we also struggle with a desire for 
ongoing individual choice in these matters, and a desire to see the property 
maintained and protect what is most folks' largest single investment.  But it 
is hard 
to sit down and talk about balancing these two desires.  Linda Scott 
(Cascadia Commons, Portland, OR)

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.